High Court
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6380 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Edutest Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Gujarat Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Mr. Abraham T M Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Paavan Awasthi,Shreyash Shukla,Utkarsh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard. The petitioner company has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of blacklisting dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Additional Secretary (Recruitment), U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow by which the petitioner has been blacklisted / debarred for a period of three years. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel is that this order which has civil consequences and gravely prejudices the business interest and reputation of the petitioner was not preceded by any notice proposing blacklisting or debarment order against the petititoner. The petitioner's Counsel invited our attention to various documents annexed with the writ petition, such as a letter dated 19.02.2024 requiring a report to be submitted with regard to certain social media reports, regarding which an internal investigation was pending. The petitioner responded to the same, thereafter, another letter dated 22.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner containing certain directions and guidelines to take certain measures and submit certain information / documents, which was done according to him vide response dated 23.02.2024. Thereafter, a notice dated 29.02.2024 was given to the petitioner pointing out certain irregularities / illegalities in the recruitment and asking for an explanation. However, in the said notice dated 29.02.2024, the order of debarment or blacklisting was not proposed. A response was submitted by the petitioner to the same on 05.03.2024, copy of which is annexed with the writ petition, and which was also referred to by Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who specifically referred to Paragraph 7 and concluding paragraph wherein according to him, the petitioner had admitted its guilt. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel was that not only no notice was issued proposing an action of blacklisting / debarment prior to the passing of the impugned order, but the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice dated 29.02.2024 which in fact was not a notice for blacklisting / debarment has also not been taken into consideration. He further submitted that whatever has been stated in the counter affidavit which has been responded by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit, none of the said facts were part of any notice proposing an action of blacklisting / debarment. The petitioner's Counsel relies upon several judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in support of his contention, few of them being Vetindia Pharmaceutials Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 1 SCC 804; UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 551; Gorkha Securities Services Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2014) 9 SCC 105 & Baba Constructions Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC Online All 937. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional C.S.C. vehemently asserted before us that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, as earlier, some of the promoters of the petitioner company were part of another company which was given the work of recruitment in the State of Bihar, and the said company was found to be indulging in malpractices and was made accountable, but this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. Secondly, while submitting the tender, the documents pertaining to the work assigned to the said company in Bihar were filed and that was the basis for grant of work to the petitioner. All this was concealed. He has invited our attention to various paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State to refer to various facts and documents mentioned therein. However, on being asked to demonstrate as to where all these facts and documents have been mentioned in any notice proposing debarment / blacklisting, in spite of best efforts, Shri Tiwari could not do so. We then asked him to show as to whether in the notice dated 29.02.2024, these facts have been mentioned, we find that it is not so, nor could Shri Tiwari show the same. The law with regard to blacklisting and debarment is well settled. Principles of natural justice and proportionality are two grounds which are available to Court for judicial review of such orders. In the case at hand, there is no notice on record which may have proposed debarment or blacklisting, and the facts and material on the basis of which such proposal could have been made. Therefore, apparently, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Even if we take into consideration the notice dated 29.02.2024, we find that the averments made in the counter affidavit do not figure in this notice. Moreover, most important, a response has been submitted to the said notice which is at Page 100 of the writ petition. None of the pleas taken in defence have been taken into consideration in the order of blacklisting which does not even refer to the said reply to the show cause notice dated 29.02.2024. In fact, the notice dated 29.02.2024 itself does not figure in the said order of blacklisting, therefore, the plea now being taken by the State that, it is a notice for blacklisting, apart from being factually incorrect is nothing but an afterthought, nor is there any reference to the response to the said notice, in the blacklisting order. The blacklisting order is clearly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, as it is stigmatic, not only in containing an order of debarment / blacklisting, but also, commenting upon the functioning of the petitioner company. The petitioner as a company has a legal identity of its own, therefore, purely on the grounds of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of debarment / blacklisting cannot be sustained. The order dated 18.06.2024 is quashed, in so far as it relates to debarment and blacklisting. It is open for the concerned opposite party to issue notice to the petitioner clearly mentioning therein the facts and material on the basis of which an order of debarment / blacklisting is proposed i.e. if it is proposed, giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit a reply, and if such a reply is submitted, to consider the same and pass a fresh order. If no reply is submitted within the stipulated time, then also, it shall be open for the concerned authority to pass a fresh order giving the basis and reasons for the same. It is made clear that we have not at all entered into nor adjudicated the merits of the allegations and counter allegations or pleas in defence. We also make it clear that so far as termination or the revocation of the contract, if any, is involved, we have not entered into that question and the impugned order so far as it relates to the said aspect, remains as it is, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek remedies in respect thereof, meaning thereby, our order is confined only to debarment and blacklisting of the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 21.1.2025/Lokesh Kumar [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6380 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Edutest Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Gujarat Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Mr. Abraham T M Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Paavan Awasthi,Shreyash Shukla,Utkarsh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard. The petitioner company has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of blacklisting dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Additional Secretary (Recruitment), U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow by which the petitioner has been blacklisted / debarred for a period of three years. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel is that this order which has civil consequences and gravely prejudices the business interest and reputation of the petitioner was not preceded by any notice proposing blacklisting or debarment order against the petititoner. The petitioner's Counsel invited our attention to various documents annexed with the writ petition, such as a letter dated 19.02.2024 requiring a report to be submitted with regard to certain social media reports, regarding which an internal investigation was pending. The petitioner responded to the same, thereafter, another letter dated 22.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner containing certain directions and guidelines to take certain measures and submit certain information / documents, which was done according to him vide response dated 23.02.2024. Thereafter, a notice dated 29.02.2024 was given to the petitioner pointing out certain irregularities / illegalities in the recruitment and asking for an explanation. However, in the said notice dated 29.02.2024, the order of debarment or blacklisting was not proposed. A response was submitted by the petitioner to the same on 05.03.2024, copy of which is annexed with the writ petition, and which was also referred to by Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who specifically referred to Paragraph 7 and concluding paragraph wherein according to him, the petitioner had admitted its guilt. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel was that not only no notice was issued proposing an action of blacklisting / debarment prior to the passing of the impugned order, but the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice dated 29.02.2024 which in fact was not a notice for blacklisting / debarment has also not been taken into consideration. He further submitted that whatever has been stated in the counter affidavit which has been responded by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit, none of the said facts were part of any notice proposing an action of blacklisting / debarment. The petitioner's Counsel relies upon several judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in support of his contention, few of them being Vetindia Pharmaceutials Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 1 SCC 804; UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 551; Gorkha Securities Services Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2014) 9 SCC 105 & Baba Constructions Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC Online All 937. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional C.S.C. vehemently asserted before us that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, as earlier, some of the promoters of the petitioner company were part of another company which was given the work of recruitment in the State of Bihar, and the said company was found to be indulging in malpractices and was made accountable, but this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. Secondly, while submitting the tender, the documents pertaining to the work assigned to the said company in Bihar were filed and that was the basis for grant of work to the petitioner. All this was concealed. He has invited our attention to various paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State to refer to various facts and documents mentioned therein. However, on being asked to demonstrate as to where all these facts and documents have been mentioned in any notice proposing debarment / blacklisting, in spite of best efforts, Shri Tiwari could not do so. We then asked him to show as to whether in the notice dated 29.02.2024, these facts have been mentioned, we find that it is not so, nor could Shri Tiwari show the same. The law with regard to blacklisting and debarment is well settled. Principles of natural justice and proportionality are two grounds which are available to Court for judicial review of such orders. In the case at hand, there is no notice on record which may have proposed debarment or blacklisting, and the facts and material on the basis of which such proposal could have been made. Therefore, apparently, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Even if we take into consideration the notice dated 29.02.2024, we find that the averments made in the counter affidavit do not figure in this notice. Moreover, most important, a response has been submitted to the said notice which is at Page 100 of the writ petition. None of the pleas taken in defence have been taken into consideration in the order of blacklisting which does not even refer to the said reply to the show cause notice dated 29.02.2024. In fact, the notice dated 29.02.2024 itself does not figure in the said order of blacklisting, therefore, the plea now being taken by the State that, it is a notice for blacklisting, apart from being factually incorrect is nothing but an afterthought, nor is there any reference to the response to the said notice, in the blacklisting order. The blacklisting order is clearly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, as it is stigmatic, not only in containing an order of debarment / blacklisting, but also, commenting upon the functioning of the petitioner company. The petitioner as a company has a legal identity of its own, therefore, purely on the grounds of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of debarment / blacklisting cannot be sustained. The order dated 18.06.2024 is quashed, in so far as it relates to debarment and blacklisting. It is open for the concerned opposite party to issue notice to the petitioner clearly mentioning therein the facts and material on the basis of which an order of debarment / blacklisting is proposed i.e. if it is proposed, giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit a reply, and if such a reply is submitted, to consider the same and pass a fresh order. If no reply is submitted within the stipulated time, then also, it shall be open for the concerned authority to pass a fresh order giving the basis and reasons for the same. It is made clear that we have not at all entered into nor adjudicated the merits of the allegations and counter allegations or pleas in defence. We also make it clear that so far as termination or the revocation of the contract, if any, is involved, we have not entered into that question and the impugned order so far as it relates to the said aspect, remains as it is, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek remedies in respect thereof, meaning thereby, our order is confined only to debarment and blacklisting of the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 21.1.2025/Lokesh Kumar [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]